Civil Disobedience: Henry David Thoreau and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

Disobedience to be obliging has to be open and nonviolent. Mahatma Gandhi Throughout history philosophers begin played a key role in our society. Both Henry David Thoreau and Dr. Martin Luther tabby Jr. brought forth their own ways of civil disobedience, in their touch that it was imperative to disobey unjust laws. Their thoughts manifested from ideas, to theories, and eventually lead to our society today. Civil disobedience in a pragmatic way is the act of a non-violent move workforcet in order to enforce the change of certain laws to ensure equality for all.Dr. queen explained in his quote One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, willingly to accept the punishment (220). Nevertheless, on opposite ends of the spectrum, Thoreau implied an aggressive stance motivated by his own personal hate for the government moreover yet queer used religion, supported by his charismatic ways of being gentle and apologetic. While magnate and Thoreau both believed in the use of civil disobedience to create change, they went about using civil disobedience in staggeringly different fashion. As stated by Dr. King in his letter from Birmingham Jail, Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere (214). Regarding this issue, King believed that all American communities ar connected and that injustice in ace society will affect other communities. Perhaps, one could deem injustice as a disease such as cancer that forms in one bowl then quickly spreading and eventually discombobulating the entire social infrastructure. Dr. King reshaped Americas social issues through a non-violent approach in notation to boycotting buses in Montgomery to marching through Selma, King responded to unjust laws with civil disobedience and drive action.Dr. Kings stance on prejudice laws came from morality. in general using morality as a backbone in his argument, we would agree that it is wrong to foster laws that affect a certain race or meeting of mass. Moreover, our laws are a reflection of our morals and it sets forth what we know is right and what we know is wrong. Early philosophers often struggled and faced inverse with either the government or social groups. Opposition faced consequences such as confinement, torture, or worse, death, whereas the idea of brutal punishment inflicted fear on the next individual.In his Letter from Birmingham, King compared his calling to Birmingham to the Apostle Paul in the Bible, and how he carried the gospel of the lord to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world (214). King expressed a legitimate concern over the foreboding to break laws elaborating the fact that there are two laws just laws and unjust laws. King stated, In no superstar do I advocate evading or defying the law (220). Rather more, King agreed that just laws should be followed however unjust laws are to be met with civil disobedience. What makes a law unjust one might ask? From the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, King explained that any law that degrades human personality is unjust. (219) Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and distorts the soul and damages the personality. Back in Dr. Kings time, a series of laws were passed that were the ethos of separate but equal. King rallied in opposition of these laws as still prejudice and unjust, in fact these laws were against morals. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and globe accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each groups public facilities was to remain equal.Signage using the phrases No Negros allowed and whites only distorted our views on race relations. However, King believed this in fact is not equality and it is against our morals. As a military issue of Henry David Thoreau using civil disobedience and direct action, Dr. King was motivated by his techniques which lead to a series of events that would lead to the Civil Rights Movement. All men recognize the right of revolution th at is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable (180).As Thoreau explained in his excerpt from Civil Disobedience, Thoreau used the revolution of 75 as an example of bad government. Thoreau elucidated how the government taxed certain foreign commodities that were brought to its ports. He then began to agree bad government to a political machine and stated how all machines have their clash, however, when friction takes over a machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I recount let us not have such a machine any longer (180).Thoreau elaborated on this idea that the government is a machine and when evil takes over, let us no longer have such a government. He believed not that a government should exist but at once a better government (178), Thoreau argued that power should not be left to the majority, but the conscience, in fact he interrogationed the reader rhetorically asking Must the c itizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? (178) Thoreau feels that the conscience plays a personal role.Thoreau questions democracy, and thereupon he advises us to question why we should capitulate to the government if we do not agree with a law? Why would we possess brains and have a conscience of our own if we are not allowed to think for ourselves and do what we want? Thoreau feels we ought to be real for ourselves, not the government. Furthermore, he articulated the idea that should we surrender our thoughts, or conscience to the government, or should we lease a justifiable explanation of the dilemmas that surround us? What is right as opposed to what is wrong is what leads to civil disobedience.Thoreau believed that the idea of paying taxes to support the Mexican-American was an unjust cause, whereas King strongly disagreed with laws that were prejudice. In Thoreaus reading from his article Civil Disobedience, he argues that gov ernment is best which governs not at all (177), which ultimately leads the people to discipline themselves. On the other side King explained how nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community that has refused, is forced to confront the issue (216).By cause of King being after Thoreaus era, King used Thoreaus Civil Disobedience and direct action to spark a change in society. While both Thoreau and King argued with morality in mind, they both believed injustice exist. Thoreau thinks of injustice as friction or tension that can wear the machine down. King believes that injustice just exists and tension must be created with direct action to negotiate with the machine. I accredit Dr.King in presenting the best argument due to the audience he reached out to which of course was the populace and his motives that captivated his courageous and selfless acts. Furthermore, Dr. King was concerned about injustice towards people based on their ra ce, religion, or sex whereas Thoreau was motivated by his personal hatred for the government. Regardless of how either King or Thoreau used civil disobedience, their contributions led to an admiration for their works and casted a light on unjust laws.